On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:12:08PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 03:57:08PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Adapt the macro so that we can pass either the struct drm_device or the > > > struct drm_i915_private pointers and get the answer we want. > > > > Polymorphism?! :o > > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > > 8138307 1234176 679936 10052419 996343 vmlinux.before > > > 8137591 1234176 679936 10051703 996077 vmlinux.after > > > > > > 700 bytes of code saving and peace of mind. Just don't look at the > > > macro. > > > > I did. I think I need to get new glasses now. > > > > I haven't yet decided whether this is really hideous or really > > cool. Maybe both. > > I think I like my version (or a variation of the theme) > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-January/051496.html > better, but after Daniel comment I abandoned the effort to not conflict > with his work. Subclassing is the way forward. I think this is merely a stepping stone to make the code neater in the short term. > I don't believe this moved on at all since, oh well. > > I would think the explicit cast from __I915__(), __DRM__() are not > needed? They are all there to keep the compiler happy, CPP is not a true macro system after all. > Maybe adding a BUILD_BUG_ON() checking the sizes of the 2 structures > would let us sleep at night. drm_device is unlikey to catch up any time > soon though. Indeed. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
